PUBLIC POLICY ACTION ALERT: Protect Nonprofit Advocacy!
- par: New York Council of Nonprofits, Inc. (NYCON) & Other Nonprofit Leadership Collaborators
- destinataire: NYC Campaign Finance Board (CFB)
IMMEDIATE CALL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL SIGNATURES!
In order to ensure that our message is heard loud and clear - sign on as a nonprofit organization so we can submit your group's name to the CFB!
What's this all about?
The New York City Campaign Finance Board is headed down the wrong path in their effort to shine a light on big money’s influence in politics. Rather than accomplish its intended goal of exposing “swift boat-style” campaigning and million dollar “ballot security” efforts, the CFB’s proposed new rules will instead decimate non-profit, grassroots and member-to-member legislative advocacy programs that have successfully rescued childcare funding for thousands of working families, stopped critical senior centers and firehouses from closing, and protected weekend library service at branches across the city.
Advocacy is one of our most effective tools to achieve our goals. It’s critical for nonprofits like ours to take part in the democratic process. This is not only our legal right - it is our responsibility to the individuals and communities we serve and represent. Moving forward with these regulations threatens our ability to communicate with the public about legislative issues and participate effectively in policy debates. That is surely not the result City residents intended when they voted for the Charter amendment.
Background
- The Campaign Finance Board has issued regulations to implement a charter revision passed last year to disclose independent expenditures of at least $1,000 for candidate elections and ballot proposals.
- Disclosure of independent expenditures can ensure that the public knows when groups spend money communicating with the public to influence an election - but these regulations miss spending that should be covered and include spending that has nothing to do with elections at all or that is not even public communication.
What's Not Covered
- $1 million contributions to political parties for "ballot security," like the contribution being discussed in the Haggerty trial, could still remain undisclosed until after the election.
- Spending by "media companies" like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, Wall Street Journal or New York Post.
- In fact, a wealthy supporter of a candidate could simply create a new Internet or print “periodical publication” (not defined) and spend unlimited amounts of money, blanketing the City with “editorials” endorsing that candidate and never have to disclose a dime of spending – as long as the individual was not a political party, a political candidate or a candidate him or herself.
What IS Covered
- If an organization spends $1,000 calling members of the public or putting ads on the web asking people to call a City Councilmember to support or oppose her stand on an issue (for example, "Tell Councilmember X that their position on cutting the budget is wrong and that they should protect seniors by finding more money for senior centers") within three months of an election.
- If an organization spends $1,000 on one or more letters to its members, letting them know that the organization has endorsed a candidate.
What Happens Then
- The organization has to register with the CFB, even if it's not a political organization – requiring 10 to 24 financial reports during an election year.
- The organization is subject to investigations, intrusive audits, $10,000 fines and possible criminal prosecution.
- The organization has to declare it "supports" or "opposes" a candidate, even if it is only taking a stand on the issues.
- If the organization spends just $5,000 on reportable communications, it has to report all of its income of any kind from other "entities" since the last election and all individuals who gave more than $1,000 in the year before the election, even if its membership list is private.
501c3 Organization-specific Issue
- If the organization is a 501c3 organization it is NOT ALLOWED TO endorse candidates but it will be forced to choose between violating local law or federal law.
What SHOULD The CFB Do Instead?
- Parts of the proposal are great, including requiring reports about "express advocacy" - "Vote for Candidate X" and similar statements.
- The CFB should focus on what the charter amendment was designed to do: ensure that when organizations and wealthy people spend money communicating with the general public and say "Vote for Candidate X" or "Vote Against Candidate Y," they disclose that spending and where that money comes from.
- The CFB should not interfere with membership relationships, impose onerous and chilling requirements on legislative and issue advocacy, or force organizations to report irrelevant private information just because they exercise their First Amendment rights.
New York City Campaign Finance Board
40 Rector Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Dear New York City Campaign Finance Board:
In November of 2010 New York City voters approved an amendment to the City Charter requiring the disclosure of independent expenditures by individuals and groups to persuade voters on candidates and referenda on the ballot.
But we believe your proposed rules go well beyond the mandate and intent of the Charter amendment and run counter to your mission of increasing citizen participation in the political process.
Rather than simply regulating speech by wealthy individuals and groups intended to sway the public and directly affect an election, you are also regulating speech intended to educate the public on the decisions and policies of elected officials and communication by organizations with their own members. And, the rule can’t be defended as simply requiring “more disclosure” – it would also limit or prohibit much of our membership and public advocacy, and our normal engagement with public officials, by treating it as a so-called “in-kind contribution” to a “candidate.”
This threatens the ability of a wide range of non-partisan and not-for-profit organizations to communicate with the public about legislative issues, participating effectively in policy debates, and communicating with their own members and supporters about politics. And that is surely not the result City residents intended when they voted for the Charter amendment.
How We’re Affected
This rule treats non-profit advocacy and membership organizations as if we were the same as political candidates in the current system. Under this rule, if our organizations spend as little as $1,000 communicating with the public about an elected official's stand on legislative issues (if the elected official happens to be a candidate), we would have to file extensive financial reports for the first time. The same would be true if we were communicating with our own members about an election.
Reporting is not a simple process our often small staffs can add to their current responsibilities. There would be as many as 12 scheduled reports, plus up to 14 more just before the primary or general election. Failure to report, or reporting incorrectly, could lead to lengthy investigations, $10,000 fines and even criminal prosecution, which in practice would mean nearly all groups subject to the new rules that are willing to take these risks would need to pay for legal counsel to ensure proper filing.
Organizations that spend more than $5,000 would have to report and make public almost all of their sources of funding, including foundation grants, previously anonymous charitable giving, investment earnings and even membership dues as campaign “contributions.”
Organizations that spent money on legislative advocacy would also be forced to declare their spending as in support or opposition to particular candidates, even for organizations that do not currently make such endorsements.
The same rule would even apply to 501c(3) organizations who are barred from making endorsements by the IRS, putting them in the difficult position of either having to violate City law, violate Federal law or stop informing the public about important issues if the issue happens to be discussed by the City Council within three months of an election.
Notably, such disclosure is in many cases duplicative, as organizations that spend money to influence policy decisions must already file lobbying disclosure reports (though such reports are far less complex and difficult to file than the proposed filing system).
Strict rules and meaningful punishments are entirely appropriate for the independent PACs and expressly political groups whose spending the Charter amendment was meant to shine a light on. But the same regulation becomes onerous when applied to groups whose clear intention is public education, advocacy, or member service and representation.
There can be little question that given the high costs -- both in the complexity of CFB filing and the need to retain legal counsel – and the risks of erroneous reporting, that many groups would respond to the CFB’s proposed rules by limiting their own speech – an outcome at odds with the CFB’s broad goal of increasing participation in the democratic process.
The CFB can fulfill the City Charter amendment’s goal of bringing transparency and accountability to independent political expenditures without stifling speech that is critical to the democratic process by limiting its proposed rules to “express advocacy,” the spending that targets the public with speech that clearly supports or opposes candidates in elections. When organizations and wealthy people spend money communicating with the general public and say “Vote for Candidate X” or “Defeat Candidate Y,” they should disclose who they are, how much they spent, and who else financed that advertising. That’s what the Charter amendment was aimed at.
The CFB should not interfere with membership relationships, impose onerous and chilling requirements on legislative and issue advocacy, or force organizations to report irrelevant private information just because they exercise their First Amendment rights.
Cc: Mayor Michael Bloomberg
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn
En signant, vous acceptez les conditions de service de Care2
Vous pouvez gérer vos abonnements à tout moment.
Vous ne parvenez pas à signer cette pétition ?? Faites-le nous savoir.